Problem with rangedefs and mucked hands?

[Tadeyoshi]

I've a small problem with ranges and mucked hands. In the example below I've a definition included the total range for this line. Using the environment test I get success with the total range definition, but not success for the part definitions of the whole range - "incorrect flop hand". But the single defs included ALL parts of the total range def includig "nothing", so why the total range def work?

player name: AintNoSun

[sreticentv]

Nothing isn't what you are interpreting it as. It is just "high card" but if you're filtering for the range then you have to have seen the cards at showdown. The one exception being implicit strength/weakness which wouldn't be applicable here since the player reached showdown.

[Tadeyoshi]

Sorry, may be my english is to bad, I can't understand your answer. For the whole range I use filtering too - all possible hand combinations the opp can have. The single defs. including all hand combinations the opp can have too, including nothing, Khigh etc. There are 2 advantages using this method:

1. The summary of the single range defs. must be the summary oft the whole range, if not, I have a mistake in a range and I can recognize it immediately!!!

2. It's a little bit more easy to make composite defs using the whole range def than to make the summary of all single defs first.

May be the actual way is useful for some frequenzy defs. But why not using a option button for that to have both possibilities? If I say the opp may have nothing plus and I say the same in the single defs I don't expect success in the first def if HM2 don't know the hand. That do not seem logical to me!

[sreticentv]

He didn't have "nothing". Nothing just means a high card lower than king (no pair or better). In this case he had "none" because he showed down but you didn't see his cards. In non-datamined hands this wouldn't be an issue.

[Tadeyoshi]

Ok, I understand your logic in this, but I've a problem. Let's say the whole range def for a cube is 1-6 and the single range defs are 1, 2 etc. I want to know, how often the opp has "1", so I make a composite definition:

NC.Range1/NC.RangeTotal*100

That works fine on my computer, but sometimes the results are far from the reality, because of the "none" results in the whole range def. So I tried another method:

NC.Range1/(NC.Range1+NC.Range2+NC.Range3...)*100

This method not work good, sometimes it shows results from some opps, but mostly it shows nothing. Seems to cost to much power...

Is there a chance, that there come a option button or something like this in a future release of NC? I think the most users have datamined hands and so the same problem. Many custom stats I want to create seems not to be possible without that option.

[Mr. Peek]

http://forums.holdemmanager.com/notecaddy/177281-consolidated-notecaddy-feature-request-thread-24.html#post1808251

post #235, I wrote:

I was thinking it would be great (and very useful) to have a checkbox called "Ignore observed hands" in File->Filters, and also into the definition editor (for specific cases).

[sreticentv]

Ignore hands means you don't get the range even if they show. This will always be a low priority issue for all software makers because making software that has special features for TOS violations is a great way to get the software banned

[Mr. Peek]

Ignore hands means you don't get the range even if they show.

That's exactly what I want. I have seen here in the forum that several people (including me) complain that observed hands distort their notes (with respect to hand ranges). Hence my request.


This will always be a low priority issue for all software makers because making software that has special features for TOS violations is a great way to get the software banned

I'm not talking about datamined hands, I'm talking about observed hands. Many poker sites include observed hands in their hand histories (e.g., when you join a table) and HM2 imports them.

In my post #6 of this thread, you could put "Ignore hands where the hero wasn't dealt any cards" instead of "Ignore observed hands", and/or put a tooltip for the checkbox with the text "Many poker sites include observed hands in their hand histories, check this option in order to filter out those hands".

Thank you, sreticentv.

[Mr. Peek]

Up. :)

[sreticentv]

Please stop bumping. You don't have any priority over everything else here that merits it